 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2006Grains in the Agrarian diet as the causative factor for diseases of affluence hypotheses is easily debunked.
This felicitous hypothesis says that grains are the environmental factor specific to agrarian societies that is responsible for diseases of affluence. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16336696 The easiest way to disprove this hypothesis is to point out the obvious. If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years than these very same agrarian societies should have been suffering from diseases of affluence for the past 10,000 years. This clearly was not the case. Furthermore, these same diseases of affluence should logically be in a period of decline as man gradually has biologically adapted to grains. Or in other words, the worst case of the diseases of affluence would have logically existed some 10,000 years ago when man first started eating grains rather than today. Further, this very same academic paper contradicts this conclusion by saying that "CHD was reportedly rare in developed populations until the early 1900s." So, what happen in the 1900s? I can tell you. Food science developed and accordingly a sudden surge in the widespread consumption of refined-grain junk food took place. So, if grains are to be blamed for this post 1900 phenomenon then we are clearly talking about refined grains rather than whole-grains. Of course, there are other possibilities too, such as global warming and modern stress. Furthermore, this paper presents only an untested and unproven hypothesis. I have easily this hypothesis to be wrong. As previously stated, the tomato has been in the European diet for less than 200 years. Yet, it is clearly one of the healthiest foods in the human diet. So, the notion that 10,000 years is not long enough for humans to adapt to grains is total nonsense. Who says so? I do. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ > This felicitous hypothesis says that grains are the environmental > factor specific to agrarian societies that is responsible for diseases > of affluence. > http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16336696 The above hyperlink writes about the hunter-gather myth. Hunter-gather societies simply cannot support the current world populations levels. Give up growing grains and people would be starving to death on a mass scale. > The easiest way to disprove this hypothesis is to point out the > obvious. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of affluence would have logically existed some 10,000 years ago when > man first started eating grains rather than today. Furthermore, throughout these past 10,000 years many agrarian societies existed almost exclusively on grains. Hence, these people would also have logically experienced the most acute levels of these diseases of affluence. > Further, this very same academic paper contradicts this conclusion by > saying that "CHD was reportedly rare in developed populations until the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > grains rather than whole-grains. Of course, there are other > possibilities too, such as global warming and modern stress. Something else major happened. Refrigeration was invented and our food distribution system improved tremendously. Modern industrialized civilizations have had in the past 100 years more variety in their agrarian diets than ever before. In reality more people are eating more meat today than in the past 10,000 years. > Furthermore, this paper presents only an untested and unproven > hypothesis. I have easily this hypothesis to be wrong. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > human diet. So, the notion that 10,000 years is not long enough for > humans to adapt to grains is total nonsense. Ergo, Grains in the Agrarian diet as the causative factor for diseases of affluence hypothesis is total bunk. This theory is actually arguing that diseases of affluence should be at their lowest levels in the last 10,000 years of history. Thus, who are promoting it have mush for brains and are promoting a fairy tale. > Who says so? I do. > http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sharper terminology than ever before. > http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ This felicitous hypothesis says that grains are the environmental factor specific to agrarian societies that is responsible for diseases of affluence. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16336696 The above hyperlink writes about the hunter-gatherer myth. In reality, Hunter-gatherer societies simply cannot support the current world populations levels. Give up growing grains and people would be starving to death on a mass scale. The easiest way to disprove this felicitous hypothesis is to point out the obvious. In other words, if grains do cause diseases of affluence then what should have happened over the last 10,000 years? If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years these very same agrarian societies should have been suffering from diseases of affluence for the past 10,000 years. This clearly has not been the case. Furthermore, these same diseases of affluence should logically be in a period of decline as man gradually has biologically adapted to grains. Or in other words, the worst case scenario for diseases of affluence would have logically existed some 10,000 years ago when man first started eating grains, rather than today. Furthermore, throughout these past 10,000 years many agrarian societies existed almost exclusively on grains. Hence, these people would also have logically experienced the worst case scenario for diseases of affluence. Further, this very same academic paper contradicts the only logical conclusion demaned by this felicitous hypothesis by saying point-blank that "CHD was reportedly rare in developed populations until the early 1900s." So, what happen in the 1900s? I can tell you. Food science developed and accordingly a sudden surge in the widespread consumption of refined-grain junk food took place. So, if grains are to be blamed for this post 1900 phenomenon then we are clearly talking about refined grains rather than whole-grains. Of course, there are other possibilities too, such as global warming and modern stress. Something else major happened. Refrigeration was invented and our food distribution system improved tremendously. In reality, modern industrialized civilizations have had in the past 100 years more variety in their agrarian diets than ever before. In reality, more people are eating more meat today than they ever did during the past 10,000 years. Furthermore, this paper presents only an untested and unproven hypothesis. I have easily proved this stupid hypothesis to be wrong. As previously stated, the new world fruit/vegetable called the tomato has been in the European diet for less than 200 years. Yet, it is clearly one of the healthiest foods in the human diet. So, the notion that 10,000 years is not long enough for humans to adapt to grains is total nonsense. If you don't believe me, then why are you eating tomatoes? Why do men eat tomatoes in order to protect themselves from prostatic cancer? Ergo, blaming grains in the Agrarian diet as the causative factor for diseases of affluence hypothesis is total bunk. This theory is actually arguing that diseases of affluence should be at their lowest levels ever in the last 10,000 years of history. Thus, those who are promoting it have mush for brains and are promoting nothing but a fairy tale. Dream on people!!! Who says so? I do. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ > If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains > in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years > these very same agrarian societies should have been suffering from > diseases of affluence for the past 10,000 years. And they HAVE been. Have you never read of the Ancient Egyptians? They used grains extensively. What happened to their health as a result? Let's see: "Interview with Dr. Bass: What is the "Paleolithic Diet"? The Paleolithic Diet was the diet used by early man for hundreds of thousands of years preceding 10,000 years ago. It is now called the Hunter -Gatherer Diet. It consisted of a small amount of fruit, mostly berries (in the North), leaves and vegetables, nuts, fish, poultry & meat, occasionally eggs. No grains or legumes were used until appr. 10,000 years ago, when men began to settle in cities, plant crops, grains, legumes, and raise animals for food. From a (hunter-gatherer) diet that was largely raw and based on animal products and vegetables, man changed to a (agricultural) diet that was high in carbs & sugars and cooked foods. This began a period of degeneration, even though the food was whole, natural and of high quality. As among the ancient Egyptians who were in terrible health (mummies show obesity and diseases). Their diet was based on fresh, organic vegetables and fruits - low-fat, but high in grains." http://www.drbass.com/primitive.html Pay particular attention to that last sentence. You weren't mummified in ancient Egypt unless you were at least somewhat "well to do." The poor were just buried. How about this paragraph? "We know, from palenotologists' study of human remains from the ancient past, that when a culture begins to cultivate cereal grains they experience substantial reductions in height, which is variously reported as 5" and 6"(2,4). Clearly, the reduction is substantial and significant. We know, too, that these remains demonstrate weaker bone structure (through reductions in peak bone-mass) and evidence of articular damage(3). Additionally, ancient Egyptians, who consumed a diet that would be considered very "heart-healthy" in our culture, have left behind mummies which clearly demonstrate atherosclerosis (7). While the evidence from the ancients is compelling, there can always be counter-arguments and debates when we are reaching back as far as 10,000 years into the past. Yet a few marginal pockets of scientific enquiry have explored a few elements of modern implications of this issue." http://gluten-free.org/hoggan/dubious.txt Yup. Looks like grains didn't help those Egyptians at all. Now let's look at your tomato logic. You seem to think that, because the tomato itself is a new food that humans have "adapted" to it. The notion is absurd. 1 - there's no possible way any species could adapt to a really new food in 200 years. 2 - other than lycopene (a powerful antioxidant) there's really nothing "new" to the human diet in a tomato. A quick review of the nutritional make up of the tomato reveals that it is very similar to many of the fruits or veggies that humans are already well adapted to eat. This is in stark contrast to wheat, which contains gluten... a COMPLETELY NEW and TOTALLY USELESS compound in the human diet. Also, as you pointed out, grains contain large amounts of fiber, which you seem to think is a good thing... but high amounts of fiber have not proven to be beneficial in the human diet. Most studies I've seen compare those eating fiber with those eating almost no fiber. Of course, those eating no fiber usually eat a SAD, so it's they're usually poorly constructed studies to begin with. Ergo, you're logic is totally flawed. But hey, thanks again for helping make a solid case against grains. Max. >Now let's look at your tomato logic. You seem to think that, because >the tomato itself is a new food that humans have "adapted" to it. The >notion is absurd. 1 - there's no possible way any species could adapt >to a really new food in 200 years. 2 - other than lycopene (a powerful >antioxidant) there's really nothing "new" to the human diet in a >tomato. Agreed. >A quick review of the nutritional make up of the tomato >reveals that it is very similar to many of the fruits or veggies that >humans are already well adapted to eat. This is in stark contrast to >wheat, which contains gluten... a COMPLETELY NEW and TOTALLY USELESS >compound in the human diet. >Max. Why are grains so hard for many people to give up? Are they addictive? Is it because their bodies are used to using glycogen as a fuel source and the changeover to fat burning is hard on the system? Rob ::: Now let's look at your tomato logic. You seem to think that, ::: because the tomato itself is a new food that humans have "adapted" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: :: Why are grains so hard for many people to give up? Programming. Authorities telling us to eat them. :: Are they addictive? Most carbs are addictive for many. Many do taste good, too. Easier to process into various forms. Is it because their bodies are used to using glycogen as :: a fuel source and the changeover to fat burning is hard on the :: system? I don't think that's a reason, though there is some basis in truth to this. Low glycogen levels can make certain activities much more difficult. The thing is, most people rarely do the things to justify using glycogen as the main fuel supply. > ::: Now let's look at your tomato logic. You seem to think that, > ::: because the tomato itself is a new food that humans have "adapted" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Programming. Authorities telling us to eat them. ------------------------- Earthshattering abundance. I used to go into one of the big box stores (Sam's Club) and just walk around admiring the immense floor space devoted to grain derived products. Almost all of the very large "snack food" area, except for the "sugar" snacks. In a modern large grocery store, the "fresh food" areas are maybe 1/3 of the processed foods... which include many grain based snacks, large selections of breads, PIZZA by the furlong, canned and frozen vegetables , frozen meals ........ Just a massive amount of the carbohydrate based stuff - dominating the food outlets. --------------------------------- Grains = very cheap raw material. Process Grains = pretty substantial markups for manufacture (5 cents of corn in a $3.00 box of corn flakes) [ corn is about $2.50 per bushel]. Fresh meat markups are _far_ less. You can look up some interesting food raw material costs in the finance section of your newspaper. > :: Are they addictive? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > thing is, most people rarely do the things to justify using glycogen as the > main fuel supply.  Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > Earthshattering abundance. I used to go into one of the big box stores > (Sam's Club) and just walk around admiring the immense floor space [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Just a massive amount of the carbohydrate based stuff - dominating the > food outlets. Thank you for proving my point. None of the above qualifies as Whole-Grain. Just thought that you might want to STOP arguing over language for a change. > > If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains > > in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They used grains extensively. What happened to their health as a > result? Let's see: No, they have NOT. Diseases of Civilization, or whatever you want to call them, are of recent origin. Just like that paper stated THEY all happen post 1900. I think you could argue 19th century and after, but death statistics for the USA clearly show that these diseases did not take over death from infectious agents for the elderly until well after 1900. So, as usual you are full of crap. I was thinking of the Ancient Egyptians, too. And, will see what I can come up with. But, I am sure heart disease certainly was not an important cause of death in Ancient Egypt. This reply is not just evidence, but hard core proof that you are more interested in "being right" and ad homonem than you are about learning the facts. When you say you'll see what you can "come up with" what you mean is that you'll embark on a meaningless journey to try your best to show how the ancient Egyptians had great health. You won't be able to do so. It is an established fact that even Egyptian royalty didn't live very long lives. It's quite obvious by your reply that you didn't even bother to take the time to read up on the links I posted. Yet another sign of a small, closed mind. Max. > It's quite obvious by your reply that you didn't even bother to take > the time to read up on the links I posted. Yet another sign of a > small, closed mind. Oh, really? They were on the same level of crap characterized by those Russians have proven that microwave ovens are bad for your health web pages. Again, you don't have a clue about the very Western concept called evidence. Shown me some academic quality web pages, complete with references, that state Ancient Egyptians suffered from widespread heart disease from eating grains. Show me where I ever advocated that healthy people should be eating a diet that consists almost exclusively of grains. My Advance Level Diet Guidelines clearly state http://food.naturalhealthperspective.com/dietguidelines.html that you should be eating equal amounts of both whole-grains and vegetables. Of course, you never were interested in reality. :( You have my never ending condolences. > They were on the same level of crap characterized by those Russians > have proven that microwave ovens are bad for your health web pages. > Again, you don't have a clue about the very Western concept called > evidence. That's right. Rather than use the opportunity to reinforce your position, just spout out your meaningless opinion about the links I've posted. You really believe that your opinion matters, don't you? :) I really shouldn't give you anything because of your complete refusal to debate based on the merits of your arguments, but I suppose I could say "You asked for it." > Shown me some academic quality web pages, complete with references, > that state Ancient Egyptians suffered from widespread heart disease > from eating grains. Well, we know that ancient Egypt depended on grains a great deal. It's an undeniable fact, so really all I have to prove is that they suffered heart disease. How about Tulane University? http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=2916 "Study of Egyptian mummies has revealed the presence of schistosomiasis (a parasitic disease that continues to plague Egypt), bone disorders and vascular diseases such as arteriosclerosis. Evidence of these diseases in ancient populations sheds light on the causes of disease. The presence of arteriosclerosis, for example, shows that the stress of a modern, civilized life is not the sole cause of heart disease." That one paragraph completely debunks your position that these diseases are only found in modern times. Of course there's also an entire book written on mummy autopsies called "The Scientific Study of Mummies" by. Arthur Aufderheide. The book has some details of the heart disease found in mummies from several parts of the ancient world... including Egypt. Regarding your comment on fiber, well, I can't say it any better than this: http://www.biblelife.org/myths.htm scroll down to the section "Myth No. 3 - Fiber is Healthy and Required in the Diet." Now that you have some university-quality data given to you, I expect you to reply with more than your usual ramblings and ad homonem... but you probably won't. You have my never ending pity. Max. :: Regarding your comment on fiber, well, I can't say it any better than :: this: :: http://www.biblelife.org/myths.htm :: scroll down to the section "Myth No. 3 - Fiber is Healthy and :: Required in the Diet." Boy, this site attacks almost everything! I just came across that site recently, though I'm surprised I hadn't found it sooner. Since I've been following Weston Price's work for about 6 years now, the page tends to fall right in line with what I've learned. The only exception to that is Myth No. 5 - Organic Fruits, Vegetables, Eggs and Meat are More Healthy. I have to say that this is new to me. It really isn't that big of a deal, though, because I plan on having my own garden soon. The main reason I posted that page is Mr. Natural's request for something with plenty of references. If he's truly interested in learning something, it should take him quite a while to look through the many, many links on that page. We'll see. Max. :: I just came across that site recently, though I'm surprised I hadn't :: found it sooner. Since I've been following Weston Price's work for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: that this is new to me. It really isn't that big of a deal, though, :: because I plan on having my own garden soon. No 5 wasn't any surprise to me, but some of the others were, like the thing about cage-free eggs and chickens. However, when there is a HUGE profit incentive involved, my distrust flag pegs hard. :: The main reason I posted that page is Mr. Natural's request for :: something with plenty of references. If he's truly interested in :: learning something, it should take him quite a while to look through :: the many, many links on that page. We'll see. Please don't hold your breath. > Regarding your comment on fiber, well, I can't say it any better than > this: > http://www.biblelife.org/myths.htm > scroll down to the section "Myth No. 3 - Fiber is Healthy and Required > in the Diet." I happen to have a life. You had your shot and you clearly blew it. I will leave you kooks, yet again, knowing anybody who thinks that fiber naturally found in food serves no possible health purpose is a total nutrition moron. Just like Montygram, you guys don't rate the time of day let alone another minute of my time. You are operating at the level of a 3rd grader. Go play with your classmates and waste more of their time, Kook! The point about the health of Ancient Egyptians is about as relevant as whether or not it is currently raining in Spain. I advocate moderation. I do NOT advocate eating extreme amount of anything, including Grains. Now, please continue arguing over language with your fellow failures in life. Just thought that you might want to know that you are on the intellectual level of an insect in my book. Who says so? I do. > I happen to have a life. You had your shot and you clearly blew it. HAHAHAHAHAH!!! That's it! Tuck your tail between your legs and RUN little girly man. You can't support your position with actual data so you do the only thing you can do, spew more ad homonen and turn tail. I sure enjoy seeing your back side as you run away. > Who says so? I do. Who cares what you say? I don't. Buh-bye. > "Interview with Dr. Bass: > What is the "Paleolithic Diet"? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > based on fresh, organic vegetables and fruits - low-fat, but high in > grains." Sorry, but nobody but nobody knows for sure what the so-called hunter-gatherers actually ate. Could be because there were more than one of them? And, of course, what they ate would depend in large part on their geographical location. All you got is a bunch of hot air balloons speculating wildly on what these mythical hunter-gathers actually ate. I can tell you one thing that they ate: Disease Ridden Wild Game, like rodents and mice. As usual, you are full of crap on this key issue too. And as usual you shoot off on some random tangent when the going gets tough. While I agree that no one knows for sure what the HGs ate, what we *DO* know for sure is what they *DIDN'T* eat... and that's grains. Max. > Sorry, but nobody but nobody knows for sure what the so-called > hunter-gatherers actually ate. Except for videos of them. There are plenty of hunter-gatherer societies remaining in the world. Their numbers dwindle slowly but they aren't extinct. > Could be because there were more than > one of them? And, of course, what they ate would depend in large part > on their geographical location. Very little of which is grain. I hate to inform you but adults today are between 1 and 2 feet taller on average than the founder fathers of America were. And, their stunted growth was due to their crappy diet which had next to no variety and was certainly not balanced. Today in the motherload of diseases of civilization we are eating a vastly superior diet. You logic is half-a.s backwards, I hate to inform you. > Now let's look at your tomato logic. You seem to think that, because > the tomato itself is a new food that humans have "adapted" to it. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wheat, which contains gluten... a COMPLETELY NEW and TOTALLY USELESS > compound in the human diet. No, it is not! Not by a long shot. See Nightshade foods http://www.organicfood.co.uk/inspiration/craig_nightshadefoods.html Tomatoes are related to nightshades which many still consider poisonous. > Also, as you pointed out, grains contain large amounts of fiber, which > you seem to think is a good thing... but high amounts of fiber have not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ergo, you're logic is totally flawed. But hey, thanks again for > helping make a solid case against grains. Sorry to inform you but fiber is vital to any creature born with intestines. It is about time that you figured out this basic fact of life. Sorry to inform you, but your mental illness is showing. You cannot carry on a logical conversation with a nut case, which your above comments has identified you as a royal fruit cake. You mentally ill Arses have my condolences. "Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in > You mentally ill Arses have my condolences. Yes, we are all mentally ill and you are the only normal one! :-p Was there a reason you couldn't concentrate long enough to keep your replies in a single post? Was it really nevessary to break it up into 3 replies? Must be all the grains clouding your concentration. > I hate to inform you but adults today are between 1 and 2 feet taller > on average than the founder fathers of America were. #1 - I'd be happy to read your evidence of that. Please post your links. #2 - Your argument is actually irrelevant. Our founding fathers mainly came from England, where grains were already a large part of their diet. It wasn't until they came here to settle America that they got away from a grain based diet and moved to more beef and vegetable crops. > Today in the motherload of diseases of civilization we are eating a > vastly superior diet. LOL!!! This is hilarious! You provide so much entertainment value I feel like I should be paying you! :D You're saying that the typical American these days eat foods that are vastly superior to what they ate in the 1700s. Do you realize how absurd that is? > > humans are already well adapted to eat. This is in stark contrast to > > wheat, which contains gluten... a COMPLETELY NEW and TOTALLY USELESS > > compound in the human diet. > No, it is not! Not by a long shot. No? What other foods have humans been eating for thousands of years that contain gluten? > See Nightshade foods > http://www.organicfood.co.uk/inspiration/craig_nightshadefoods.html Are you saying that nightshade fruits contain gluten? That's the only reason I can see for you posting this link, yet I can find no mention of gluten there. What are you saying man? > Tomatoes are related to nightshades which many still consider > poisonous. Some nightshades being toxic has no bearing on this discussion. As you can clearly see from the link you provided, the eggplant has been used for much longer than the tomato. It's in the nightshade family, so the logic that because some nightshades are poisonous that we would have had to "adapt" to them is just as absurd as ever. From the above link, under your theory, we would have also adapted to potatoes and chili peppers. > You mentally ill Arses have my condolences. I'm starting to get it now. You *really* think your opinion matters to people. That's the only reason I can come up with for you constantly dishing out your worthless condolences. But at least you provide entertainment value. > If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains > in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years > these very same agrarian societies should have been suffering from > diseases of affluence for the past 10,000 years. And they HAVE been. Have you never read of the Ancient Egyptians? They used grains extensively. What happened to their health as a result? Let's see: "Interview with Dr. Bass: What is the "Paleolithic Diet"? The Paleolithic Diet was the diet used by early man for hundreds of thousands of years preceding 10,000 years ago. It is now called the Hunter -Gatherer Diet. It consisted of a small amount of fruit, mostly berries (in the North), leaves and vegetables, nuts, fish, poultry & meat, occasionally eggs. No grains or legumes were used until appr. 10,000 years ago, when men began to settle in cities, plant crops, grains, legumes, and raise animals for food. From a (hunter-gatherer) diet that was largely raw and based on animal products and vegetables, man changed to a (agricultural) diet that was high in carbs & sugars and cooked foods. This began a period of degeneration, even though the food was whole, natural and of high quality. As among the ancient Egyptians who were in terrible health (mummies show obesity and diseases). Their diet was based on fresh, organic vegetables and fruits - low-fat, but high in grains." http://www.drbass.com/primitive.html Pay particular attention to that last sentence. You weren't mummified in ancient Egypt unless you were at least somewhat "well to do." The poor were just buried. How about this paragraph? "We know, from palenotologists' study of human remains from the ancient past, that when a culture begins to cultivate cereal grains they experience substantial reductions in height, which is variously reported as 5" and 6"(2,4). Clearly, the reduction is substantial and significant. We know, too, that these remains demonstrate weaker bone structure (through reductions in peak bone-mass) and evidence of articular damage(3). Additionally, ancient Egyptians, who consumed a diet that would be considered very "heart-healthy" in our culture, have left behind mummies which clearly demonstrate atherosclerosis (7). While the evidence from the ancients is compelling, there can always be counter-arguments and debates when we are reaching back as far as 10,000 years into the past. Yet a few marginal pockets of scientific enquiry have explored a few elements of modern implications of this issue." http://gluten-free.org/hoggan/dubious.txt Yup. Looks like grains didn't help those Egyptians at all. Now let's look at your tomato logic. You seem to think that, because the tomato itself is a new food that humans have "adapted" to it. The notion is absurd. 1 - there's no possible way any species could adapt to a really new food in 200 years. 2 - other than lycopene (a powerful antioxidant) there's really nothing "new" to the human diet in a tomato. A quick review of the nutritional make up of the tomato reveals that it is very similar to many of the fruits or veggies that humans are already well adapted to eat. This is in stark contrast to wheat, which contains gluten... a COMPLETELY NEW and TOTALLY USELESS compound in the human diet. Also, as you pointed out, grains contain large amounts of fiber, which you seem to think is a good thing... but high amounts of fiber have not proven to be beneficial in the human diet. Most studies I've seen compare those eating fiber with those eating almost no fiber. Of course, those eating no fiber usually eat a SAD, so it's they're usually poorly constructed studies to begin with. Ergo, you're logic is totally flawed. But hey, thanks again for helping make a solid case against grains. Max. >> If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains >> in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >thousands of years preceding 10,000 years ago. It is now called the >Hunter -Gatherer Diet. Who cares? Animals basically adapt to their environment which often is far from ideal. >It consisted of a small amount of fruit, mostly berries (in the North), >leaves and vegetables, nuts, fish, poultry & meat, occasionally eggs. what fruits and vegetables?!?! you are veering away from the LC talking points. >No grains or legumes were used until appr. 10,000 years ago, when men >began to settle in cities, plant crops, grains, legumes, and raise >animals for food. From a (hunter-gatherer) diet that was largely raw >and based on animal products and vegetables, well at least you dropped fruits but you should have said LC vegetables. > man changed to a (agricultural) diet that was high in carbs & sugars and cooked foods. really? Lot of added sugar back then. >This began a period of degeneration, even though the food was whole, >natural and of high quality. As among the ancient Egyptians who were in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >6"(2,4). Clearly, the reduction is substantial and significant. We >know, Intertesting as people are taller and fatter now as diets have only gotten worse by these standards. >too, that these remains demonstrate weaker bone structure (through lack of exercise and increased use of dairy products >reductions in peak bone-mass) and evidence of articular damage(3). >Additionally, ancient Egyptians, who consumed a diet that would be >considered very "heart-healthy" in our culture, have left behind >mummies >which clearly demonstrate atherosclerosis (7). While the evidence from oxidized cholesterol from cooking meats and dairy >the >ancients is compelling, there can always be counter-arguments and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Yup. Looks like grains didn't help those Egyptians at all. So far he has not shown any connection. What was the weather like during the time? I am sure that must have been a factor as well. >Now let's look at your tomato logic. You seem to think that, because >the tomato itself is a new food that humans have "adapted" to it. The [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Ergo, you're logic is totally flawed. But hey, thanks again for >helping make a solid case against grains. Exactly what is the mechanish that causes atherosclerosis from eating grains? LOL > Who cares? Animals basically adapt to their environment which often > is far from ideal. I'd be happy to read any evidence you have showing that any animal species adapted to a food containing substances completely foreign to that species, that their bodies didn't need, that didn't suffer any ill effects from the switch. > So far he has not shown any connection. What was the weather like > during the time? I am sure that must have been a factor as well. Well, that's a great opinion. Bad weather for a few thousand years. Yes, THAT must have been the cause of their horrible health. > Exactly what is the mechanish that causes atherosclerosis from eating > grains? LOL Simple... elevated insulin levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8 57812&dopt=Abstract A diet full of whole grains would cause a constant rise in insulin levels as opposed to one with few or no grains that incorporates plenty of animal foods and veggies. Am I supposed to LOL here? Seems like that's what you do at the end of each post. Max. >A diet full of whole grains would cause a constant rise in insulin >levels as opposed to one with few or no grains that incorporates plenty >of animal foods and veggies. This would only be the case in a type 2 diabetic are you suggesting the ancient egyptians were a bunch of type 2 diabetics? Since whole grains do not cause type 2 diabetes but trans fats, hydrogenated vegetable oils, etc. There are plenty of regions in the world with diets full of grains that do not have type 2 diabetes. ::: A diet full of whole grains would cause a constant rise in insulin ::: levels as opposed to one with few or no grains that incorporates [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: grains do not cause type 2 diabetes but trans fats, hydrogenated :: vegetable oils, etc. What? Are you saying that transfats, hydrogenated oils, etc, cause type 2 diabetes? :: There are plenty of regions in the world with :: diets full of grains that do not have type 2 diabetes. Interestingly, the rates are increasing. While a non-type 2 may not suffer from the types of BG elevations that type 2s do, it doesn't mean there isn't a small upward shift in levels, which, over time, leads to T2. Why it is that the numbers of T2s have increased over time and continue to do so? >::: A diet full of whole grains would cause a constant rise in insulin >::: levels as opposed to one with few or no grains that incorporates [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >What? Are you saying that transfats, hydrogenated oils, etc, cause type 2 >diabetes? Yes it is a major problem. Hydrogenated soybean oil is poison. >:: There are plenty of regions in the world with >:: diets full of grains that do not have type 2 diabetes. > >Interestingly, the rates are increasing. If they are it is adopting the western tradition of fast food etc. >While a non-type 2 may not suffer from the types of BG elevations that type >2s do, it doesn't mean there isn't a small upward shift in levels, which, >over time, leads to T2. The substantial increases in the rates of type 2 diabetes can not be attributed simply to increased carb consumption. The aisles of the average supermarket have not changed in 30+ years. There has always been a bread aisle, an aisle with cookies, crackers, and other processed crap, an aisle of poatato chips, nachos, pretzels, etc. There is not any more shelf space devoted to carbs than 20 years ago. The quality of foods on the otherhand has decreased substantially. People eat out a lot more eating the same crap hamburgers and fries that are now cooked in toxic, rancid vegetable oils instead of lard. >Why it is that the numbers of T2s have increased >over time and continue to do so? The rate of increase in T2 diabetes far outpaces any increase in carb consumption. Are 8 year olds now being diagnosed with T2 diabetes really consuming in 8 years the amount of carbs that a 45 year old diagnosed with T2 consumed in 45 years a generation ago? :: On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:02:49 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] ::: :: Yes it is a major problem. Hydrogenated soybean oil is poison. I agree it is a major problem, but I'm asking why you think transfats cause T2 diabetes. ::::: There are plenty of regions in the world with ::::: diets full of grains that do not have type 2 diabetes. ::: ::: Interestingly, the rates are increasing. ::: :: If they are it is adopting the western tradition of fast food etc. Oh, so now you think fast food is the cause? You do realize that transfats show up on non-fast-food foods, right? There is plenty of "fast food" at the supermarket. ::: While a non-type 2 may not suffer from the types of BG elevations ::: that type 2s do, it doesn't mean there isn't a small upward shift [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: There is not any more shelf space devoted to carbs than 20 years ago. :: The quality of foods on the otherhand has decreased substantially. You're saying that the quality of junk foods has decreased? :: People eat out a lot more eating the same crap hamburgers and fries :: that are now cooked in toxic, rancid vegetable oils instead of lard. What? And you think those same things aren't in supermarket foods? Have you read the labels on those cookies, crackers, and other processed crap? Make up your mind, is it transfats or fast food? And you're right, things haven't changed that much in 30 years in supermarkets, but the rates of increase in T2 have, because for the last 30 years people have been eating what's been sold for the past 30 years. Hence, you're supporting the point. ::: Why it is that the numbers of T2s have increased ::: over time and continue to do so? :: :: The rate of increase in T2 diabetes far outpaces any increase in carb :: consumption. Why does an increase in carb consumption have to mirror exactly the increase in T2? You feed generations of people the same foods and over time, you see an increase in T2. It's not as if you eat junk and become T2 the next day directly as a result. Things build up over time. Are 8 year olds now being diagnosed with T2 diabetes :: really consuming in 8 years the amount of carbs that a 45 year old :: diagnosed with T2 consumed in 45 years a generation ago? No, but 8 year old are the product of generations of people eating too many carbs, and their bodies are becoming more prone to the disease. And those 8-year olds are eating too many carbs. If they weren't, they'd very likely wouldn't become T2s. >:: On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:02:49 -0500, "Roger Zoul" >:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >show up on non-fast-food foods, right? There is plenty of "fast food" at >the supermarket. It is a contributing factor and yes supermarket food is a factor as well. >::: While a non-type 2 may not suffer from the types of BG elevations >::: that type 2s do, it doesn't mean there isn't a small upward shift [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >You're saying that the quality of junk foods has decreased? Yes trans fats, HFCS all are commonplace now. >:: People eat out a lot more eating the same crap hamburgers and fries >:: that are now cooked in toxic, rancid vegetable oils instead of lard. > >What? And you think those same things aren't in supermarket foods? Have you >read the labels on those cookies, crackers, and other processed crap? Make >up your mind, is it transfats or fast food? There is trans fat in fast food got it moron? It is also in things like cookies, crackers, and other processed crap. However people have been eating crackers, cookies etc with carbs for a looong time however not with trans fats. >And you're right, things haven't changed that much in 30 years in >supermarkets, but the rates of increase in T2 have, because for the last 30 >years people have been eating what's been sold for the past 30 years. Hence, >you're supporting the point. Really? Adolescents with T2 diabetes have been eating what has been sold for the last thirty years? >::: Why it is that the numbers of T2s have increased >::: over time and continue to do so? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >an increase in T2. It's not as if you eat junk and become T2 the next day >directly as a result. Things build up over time. Again how do you explain 8 year olds with T2 diabetes? The build up used to take forty years not 8. > Are 8 year olds now being diagnosed with T2 diabetes >:: really consuming in 8 years the amount of carbs that a 45 year old >:: diagnosed with T2 consumed in 45 years a generation ago? > >No, but 8 year old are the product of generations of people eating too many >carbs, and their bodies are becoming more prone to the disease. ahh so now it is hereditary? I did not realize you could have such a big change in just a couple of generations. Grandparents get diabetes in their 50's and grand kids when they are 12 makes a lot of sense! Its funny I would expect a more gradual progression of early onset T2 diabetes. >8-year olds are eating too many carbs. If they weren't, they'd very likely >wouldn't become T2s. Funny because the worst junk food has been marketed directly to children for a long time. Cereal, crackers, cookies,candy, happy meals all junk and have been eaten by children but children getting T2 is a new phenomenon unlike eating carbs. :: On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 14:34:01 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] :: have been eating crackers, cookies etc with carbs for a looong time :: however not with trans fats. Moron? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews/transfats.html "Commercial production of partially hydrogenated fats began in the early 20th century and increased steadily until about the 1960s as processed vegetable fats displaced animal fats in the diets of the U.S. and other Western countries. Lower cost was the initial motivation, but health benefits were later claimed for margarine as a replacement for butter. " So transfats have been in diets for some 40+ years now. ::: And you're right, things haven't changed that much in 30 years in ::: supermarkets, but the rates of increase in T2 have, because for the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: Really? Adolescents with T2 diabetes have been eating what has been :: sold for the last thirty years? No, but T2 tends to be more common in families that have as a common trait, diabetes. :::::: Why it is that the numbers of T2s have increased :::::: over time and continue to do so? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: Again how do you explain 8 year olds with T2 diabetes? The build up :: used to take forty years not 8. As transfats have been with us for a long time, I don't think it's simply transfats, though they are part of the problem. For kids, it's just the combination of poor diet, too little activity and a genetic defect passed on. Not all people are as suspectable to the effect of carbs as others. That why not all people get diabetes. ::: Are 8 year olds now being diagnosed with T2 diabetes ::::: really consuming in 8 years the amount of carbs that a 45 year old [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: of sense! Its funny I would expect a more gradual progression of :: early onset T2 diabetes. And upon what would you base your assumption? How many populations have you observed that existed under these circumstances? You simply have no basis to know what to expect. Why don't you just admit that you're clueless. ::: 8-year olds are eating too many carbs. If they weren't, they'd ::: very likely wouldn't become T2s. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: meals all junk and have been eaten by children but children getting :: T2 is a new phenomenon unlike eating carbs. The rates of increase of T2 has been observed back since the days when low fat was blessed and fat was cursed. The fact that is showing up in kids now is because it's more prevalent today in adults and kids today have Xbox, etc, instead of bikes. >:: On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 14:34:01 -0500, "Roger Zoul" >:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > >So transfats have been in diets for some 40+ years now. Yep and cases of Type 2 diabetes increased substantially in the 60's and exploded in the 70's only getting worse as they become more common. >::: And you're right, things haven't changed that much in 30 years in >::: supermarkets, but the rates of increase in T2 have, because for the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >No, but T2 tends to be more common in families that have as a common trait, >diabetes. So its genetics or carbs? >:::::: Why it is that the numbers of T2s have increased >:::::: over time and continue to do so? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >As transfats have been with us for a long time, I don't think it's simply >transfats, though they are part of the problem. Type 2 diabetes has been with us for a long time as well. Just look at the rates of obesity climb as cheap soybean and other vegetable oils have replaced healthier animal fats. >For kids, it's just the combination of poor diet, too little activity and a >genetic defect passed on. It may be a defect but there is no reason to believe that it is any more prevalent in the population than it was 40 years ago when reported cases were far fewer. Environmental factors are playing a huge role both in diet and exercise. > Not all people are as suspectable to the effect >of carbs as others. That why not all people get diabetes. Carbs are not the problem. Someone eating whole/real foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and to a lesser extent fresh meats and dairy are at little risk of developing T2 diabetes carbs or not. >::: Are 8 year olds now being diagnosed with T2 diabetes >::::: really consuming in 8 years the amount of carbs that a 45 year old [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >observed that existed under these circumstances? You simply have no basis >to know what to expect. Why don't you just admit that you're clueless. Genetic mutations do NOT occur that fast. The only explanation is environmental ones. >::: 8-year olds are eating too many carbs. If they weren't, they'd >::: very likely wouldn't become T2s. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The rates of increase of T2 has been observed back since the days when low >fat was blessed and fat was cursed. However people did not eat healthy carbs such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables but crackers and cookies. Fat is not the problem and neither are carbs. :: On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:07:40 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] :: and exploded in the 70's only getting worse as they become more :: common. They were common by the 60s. :::::: And you're right, things haven't changed that much in 30 years in :::::: supermarkets, but the rates of increase in T2 have, because for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] ::: :: So its genetics or carbs? Both. Generally we eat too many carbs for our activity level. Those with certain genetics just get hurt quicker. ::::::::: Why it is that the numbers of T2s have increased ::::::::: over time and continue to do so? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: :: Type 2 diabetes has been with us for a long time as well. Correct. And the old treatment involved cutting out carby foods. Just look :: at the rates of obesity climb as cheap soybean and other vegetable :: oils have replaced healthier animal fats. Well, I don't disagree too much here :) ::: For kids, it's just the combination of poor diet, too little ::: activity and a genetic defect passed on. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: reported cases were far fewer. Environmental factors are playing a :: huge role both in diet and exercise. Okay, I don't disagree here with the last part. However, there is reason to believe it's more prevalent, though it may not really be. ::: Not all people are as suspectable to the effect ::: of carbs as others. That why not all people get diabetes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: fresh meats and dairy are at little risk of developing T2 diabetes :: carbs or not. No, carbs are the problem in that we eat too many of them, because they are cheap and taste good. Fruits and veggies aren't carbs, they are food. But when the diet is too rich in carbs and we are too inactive, we have problems. Transfats sure don't help, but there's no strong evidence that links them specifically to T2 that I know of. However, it wouldn't greatly surprise me if they were part of the problem. :::::: Are 8 year olds now being diagnosed with T2 diabetes :::::::: really consuming in 8 years the amount of carbs that a 45 year [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: Genetic mutations do NOT occur that fast. The only explanation is :: environmental ones. I'm not talking about genetic mutations. I'm talking about variation in genetic propensity for certain diseases. That's how hereditary is involved. When larger portions of the population over consume carbs, the ones first hit are those who have more disposition for diabetes. Those traits are passed along and when kids eat tons of sweets and sit on their butts, they become T2s. :::::: 8-year olds are eating too many carbs. If they weren't, they'd :::::: very likely wouldn't become T2s. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: fruits, and vegetables but crackers and cookies. Fat is not the :: problem and neither are carbs. Not, fat isn't the problem. Carbs aren't the problem. No carb is healthy or unhealthy. But over consumption is. Combine that with lots of fat (espeically transfats) and carby junk foods, you end up with what we have. >Not, fat isn't the problem. Carbs aren't the problem. No carb is healthy or >unhealthy. But over consumption is. Combine that with lots of fat >(espeically transfats) and carby junk foods, you end up with what we have. As long as one sticks to natural whole foods over consumption really is not an issue. One good sized banana and I am halfway to being full. However for manufacturers of highly processed and refined crap such as cookies, poptarts, soda, etc less filling means more profits. :: On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:39:15 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: full. However for manufacturers of highly processed and refined crap :: such as cookies, poptarts, soda, etc less filling means more profits. Well, in the end we agree more than we disagree. However, whole grains don't work for me :) >>Not, fat isn't the problem. Carbs aren't the problem. No carb is healthy or >>unhealthy. But over consumption is. Combine that with lots of fat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > full. However for manufacturers of highly processed and refined crap > such as cookies, poptarts, soda, etc less filling means more profits. You are generalizing to the universe of people with different genes and other biochemical factors...... all based on YOUR response. There are smokers who are genetically programmed to be susceptible to lung cancers readily induces, and smokers who will literally never get lung cancer - just really dirty lungs with some ordinary cell damage. One of those "lucky" smokers could generalize to the universe that smoking doesn't cause cancers -- because he has been smoking for 45 years and doesn't have cancer or any cancerous signs. That would be poisonous advice and generalization. There are smokers who can go their entire life just puffing and inhaling a few cigarettes per day and never get addicted to high cigarette consumption. I have worked with several of them, and my sister is one of them. To generalize from them and claim that anyone can smoke only a few cigarettes per day is likely to be a dangerous and false generalization. If you eat enough of anything, you will gain weight, unless you have the genes that give great hormones such as HGH to burn off or excrete (undigested) large quantities of food. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I agree that some or many food manufacturers are capable of doing all sorts of unhealthy things in the search for profits. The cigarette manufacturers did so for many years, and Reynolds Tobacco branched out into the food industry, having seen the handwriting on the wall. Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > >>Not, fat isn't the problem. Carbs aren't the problem. No carb is healthy or > >>unhealthy. But over consumption is. Combine that with lots of fat [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lung cancers readily induces, and smokers who will literally never get > lung cancer - just really dirty lungs with some ordinary cell damage. http://www.biblelife.org/myths.htm#medical "Bonus Myth No. 11 - People Are All Different. This myth is so rampant that it just had to be added to the list of ten. The scientific design of the human body is held within very tight restraints. People are not different in the manner claimed. Humans react in the very same way when they are given the same environment, same beginning health condition and same nutrition. People only appear to be different because they have some have health condition which restrict the normal scientific functions. A typical example is the diabetic who attempts to go on the low-carbohydrate diet or eats a large piece of high-sugar cherry pie with a glass of orange juice. They react much differently than a healthy person. People think everyone is different because someone developed a disease while another family member does not. They don't realize that people in the same family can sit at the same table and eat completely different meals as defined by protein, fat and carbohydrate content. A person can go into a restaurant and eat a low-carbohydrate dinner while others at the same table are eating a very high carbohydrate dinner." And, do not forget that these holy speak directly to God. Perhaps, because of all that DDT that the author personally came in contact with during his youth? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just thought that you might want to know what YOUR Kind of KOOKs think about your KIND of CRAP! > It is a contributing factor and yes supermarket food is a factor as > well. I'm sorry. Are we now accepting the notion that PHOs are a cause of type II diabetes? What evidence can you present to support this? 8 year olds getting T2 is a simple matter of over consumption of refined carbs. It's that simple. They eat sugar coated refined grains for breakfast, white bread with practically every meal, more than 2 - 12 oz cans of soda per day on average. It's a wonder it doesn't happen sooner in life. But you seem to have veered from your previous position. Let's get back to insulin and food adaptation. You still have provided none of the evidence I requested backing your position of food adaptation of a species. I would also like to request evidence of your apparent position that whole grains do not raise insulin levels when eaten. T2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, which is caused by a constant over stimulation of insulin receptors, which is caused by a constant elevation of insulin supply in the blood. If you can please provide these 3 pieces of evidence we can continue this discussion. Max. >8 year olds getting T2 is a simple matter of over consumption of >refined carbs. It's that simple. They eat sugar coated refined grains >for breakfast, white bread with practically every meal, more than 2 - >12 oz cans of soda per day on average. It's a wonder it doesn't happen >sooner in life. Oh gee kids eating frosted flakes and fruit juices, soda pop, white bread you call this a new phenomenon? >I would also like to request evidence of your apparent position that >whole grains do not raise insulin levels when eaten. Insulin is needed but in the absence of insulin resistance why would there be sustained elevation? > T2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, Really? > which is caused by a constant over >stimulation of insulin receptors, How many marathon runners or athletes in general have T2 diabetes? It is a little more complicated than simply too many carbs. > which is caused by a constant >elevation of insulin supply in the blood. Which does not happen outside of T2 diabetes. T2 diabetes causes elevation of insulin supply in the blood because it has nowhere to go. In an exercise in futility the body releases more insulin in the blood even though it does not solve the problem > Which does not happen outside of T2 diabetes. T2 diabetes causes > elevation of insulin supply in the blood because it has nowhere to go. > In an exercise in futility the body releases more insulin in the blood > even though it does not solve the problem Again, where's your evidence? Why are you avoiding my requests for you to validate your position? You now have 4 opinions to validate. > >::: A diet full of whole grains would cause a constant rise in insulin > >::: levels as opposed to one with few or no grains that incorporates [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > really consuming in 8 years the amount of carbs that a 45 year old > diagnosed with T2 consumed in 45 years a generation ago? You don't take into account the increasing use of high fructose corn syrup over the last 30 years or so. I wouldn't be surprised if a correlation can be found between the rise in T2 and the increasing use of hfcs. As far as 8 year olds developing T2, go check out your local elementary school cafeteria watch what many of the children are consuming. Juice boxes packed with the stuff. Whereas in my generation we had a choice of water or milk. Juice boxes are a huge seller for families. ::: Who cares? Animals basically adapt to their environment which often ::: is far from ideal. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: :: Simple... elevated insulin levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8 57812&dopt=Abstract :: A diet full of whole grains would cause a constant rise in insulin :: levels as opposed to one with few or no grains that incorporates :: plenty of animal foods and veggies. Am I supposed to LOL here? :: Seems like that's what you do at the end of each post. :) > > If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains > > in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > grains." > http://www.drbass.com/primitive.html BullShit! http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/diet.htm "Fats and Oil There were also a number of different oils and fat used in the preparation of food. We know of beef, goat and other fats, and the Egyptian language had 21 different names for vegetable oils obtained from sesame, caster-oil plants, flax seed, radish seed, horseradish, safflower and colocynth. Horseradish oil was particularly popular. Oil and fat was mostly used for frying meat and vegetables, though food was also cooked in milk or butter." And ... http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1114796842.html "The ancient Egyptians made at least seventeen varieties of beer and at least 24 varieties of wine (Ghaliounqui, 1979, pp. 8 and 11). Alcoholic beverages were used for pleasure, nutrition, medicine, ritual, remuneration (Cherrington, 1925, v, 1, p. 405) and funerary purposes. The latter involved storing the beverages in tombs of the deceased for their use in the after-life (King, 1947, p. 11; Darby, 1977, p.576)." > In reality, > Hunter-gatherer societies simply cannot support the current world > populations levels. Which has absolutely nothing to do with what's heathly. > Give up growing grains and people would be starving > to death on a mass scale. Except for that whole reality thing. Growing vegitables works great. Fruit and nuts, too. Besides, grain is for animals anyways so you'd only give up grains if you switch to a vegitarian diet. > The easiest way to disprove this felicitous hypothesis is to point out > the obvious. In other words, if grains do cause diseases of affluence > then what should have happened over the last 10,000 years? People would be getting diabetes. Oh wait, they do. Especially populations that previously ate diets that were lower glycemic index and switched to grain based foods in the last couple of centuries. Look at reports of native Americans in both the US and Mexico for that. Diabetes is epidemic in many tribes and there are tribes that have one branch on each side of the border with the high grain eating branch having much higher diabetes rates. So what should have happened in 10K years is some amount of evolution. Sure enough, there is less Celiac, spru, diabetes and such in populations who've been eating grains for more millenia and more of those diseases in populations who recently switched to more grains. You want to eat lots of grain? Get some genetic engineering or pick your selectively bred parents carefully. > As previously stated, the new world fruit/vegetable called the tomato > has been in the European diet for less than 200 years. Yet, it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tomatoes? Why do men eat tomatoes in order to protect themselves from > prostatic cancer? There are people with intollerances to all nightshades. Tomatoes are vegitables or fruits and humans have been eating various types of vegitables ever since our ancestors left the trees and various types of fruit for longer than that. Thus tomatoes make a poor example - they are much more like what humans are evolved to eat than are grains. and still some have nightshade intolerance ... > There are people with intollerances to all nightshades. > Tomatoes are vegitables or fruits and humans have been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like what humans are evolved to eat than are grains. and > still some have nightshade intolerance ... Not for me. I eat all kinds of grains with absolutely no problems. Tomatoes for me was definitely an acquired taste. It took me a very long time before I could stand the taste of a raw tomato on a sandwich. Me, bite into a juicy whole ripe tomato? You got to be kidding? Never!!! The more a tomato tastes like a piece of cardboard the easier it is for me to tolerate the taste. I still cannot stand the taste of tomato jucie. It makes me want to puke!!! It is absolutely awful. Thank goodness I like ketchup and tomato sauce. Just thought that you might want to know that you are wrong. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.